PARK AND CEMETERY. 
159 
CEMETERY MEN OPPOSE COMMUNITY MAUSOLEUM 
Report of Committee on Community Mausoleums , presented at Buffalo Con 
vention of Association of American Cemetery Superintendents, September if. 
A careful consideration of the sub- 
ject of community mausoleums leads 
your Committee to the following con- 
clusions: 
1. The community mausoleum in its 
best type does not offer advantages over 
earth burial in the general run of well 
conducted modern cemeteries, while 
even at its best there are serious dis-. 
advantages in community mausoleum 
interment. 
2. There is unquestionably at the 
present time a demand for community 
mausoleum interment, caused without 
doubt, by the widespread advertising 
and exploiting which has taken place 
within recent years, originating with 
individuals and corporations controlling 
certain so-called patented methods which 
it is desired to sell. 
Your Committee thinks that this de- 
mand will continue so long as these 
commercial interests continue the ad- 
vertising and exploiting, but we are 
very much inclined to doubt whether it 
will continue long should this advertis- 
ing cease. 
3. We can see no reason why any 
cemetery should not erect a community 
mausoleum, provided that the associa- 
tion is convinced that such a demand 
exists and will continue, for the use of 
such a structure, as will justify the ex- 
pense of its erection and the setting 
aside of a surely adequate sum to be 
held in trust for its maintenance and re- 
pair. 
4. We can see no objection where 
cemetery funds are insufficient, to an 
equitable and well considered arrange- 
ment with some other corporation to 
finance the proposition, provided that 
the design of the structure, the passing 
upon the quality of the material and the 
superintendence of the work, the sub- 
sequent control of the building and the 
setting aside of an adequate trust fund 
for maintenance and repair, be con- 
trolled by the cemetery association. 
We can, however, see grave dangers 
in a contract between a cemetery asso- 
ciation and an outside corporation by 
which the latter concern agrees to erect 
and exploit such a structure, reimburs- 
ing itself from the first proceeds of the 
sale of crypts, agreeing to turn over to 
the cemetery association what is left 
after it has satisfied its own demands, 
and is ready to pass on and exploit some 
other community in the same manner. 
An arrangement of this kind cannot too 
strongly be condemned, both from the 
standpoint of common fair dealing to 
the community at large, and of the sub- 
sequent welfare of the cemetery asso- 
ciation. The natural tendency of a cor- 
poration of this kind would be towards 
a flashy, showy construction; the slight- 
ing to the greatest possible etxent of all 
expensive items leading to durability; 
and the setting aside of an entirely in- 
adequate sum for the trust fund for 
maintenance and repairs. 
5. Many structures of this kind here- 
tofore erected have failed; many others 
on inspection give evidence that they 
will not stand for a long period of time. 
We know that the best designing and 
construction talent has been endeavor- 
ing, practically regardless of expense, to 
erect private mausoleums which will 
endure for long periods of time. Such 
structures have been erected at a cost 
per cubic foot far in excess of any 
amount that could be profitably invested 
in a community mausoleum, and yet 
there has been no such structure erected, 
so far as is known to your Committee, 
which does not require care and atten- 
tion for its maintenance. The basis of 
most of the community mausoleums proj- 
ects today is reinforced concrete con- 
struction, and in the more elaborate 
ones a facing over this of granite or 
other less durable stone. An inherent 
and insurmountable difficulty with the 
latter construction is the impossibility of 
so anchoring the outer shell to the inner 
structure that there will be no possi- 
bility of its giving way in time. There 
is also the question as to the durability 
of the inner structure itself. 
We are told by persons professionally 
exploiting such buildings that reinforced 
concrete is imperishable, and are re- 
ferred to various famous structures in 
other lands which have stood through 
long periods of time. Analysis of such 
examples generally shows them to be 
located in frostless or very mild cli- 
mates, and we have no history of a large 
structure which has stood intact through 
long periods of time in a climate similar 
to our own, with its fierce summer heats 
and low winter temperatures. The ques- 
tion as to the durability of modern rein- 
forced concrete construction is at best 
one of pure theory only. Generally, at 
least in the middle west, the aggregate 
used in concrete is a more or less soft 
limestone, which it is well known is not 
a durable material. Modern Portland 
Cement as it is now manufactured was 
not known a generation ago, and modern 
reinforced concrete construction is prac- 
tically a development of the last couple 
of decades, hence we have no history of 
its durability or otherwise, covering any 
extended period of time. Add to this 
the admitted fact that bad design, poor 
material or careless workmanship will 
cause such construction to fail, and one 
has reasonable grounds for expressing 
doubt. 
The committee would not wish to be 
recorded as fearing that thoroughly well 
designed and well constructed reinforced 
concrete is not reasonably dependable 
for ordinary buildings and for com- 
mercial purposes. When one approaches 
the consideration of the community 
mausoleum, however, its proved dura- 
bility should extend hundreds of years 
beyond what is necessary in other types 
of building. These structures may stand 
for a long period of time, but in the 
present state of our knowledge and in 
view of the defects which are constantly 
being shown, common good faith with 
the public requires that a surely ade- 
quate amount should be placed in trust, 
not only for maintenance and necessary 
ordinary care, but to provide for unex- 
pected failures in parts of the structure. 
We believe that the best experts today 
would consider a depreciation of one per 
cent per annum in buildings of the most 
excellent type of construction to be a 
minimum. Your Committee believes, 
however, an additional one per cent per 
annum to cover repairs and maintenance 
in excess of possible revenue would be 
the very smallest amount which could 
be prudently considered adequate as an 
annual income. When capitalized on 
the generally accepted four per cent 
basis for trust funds this means a fund 
of 50 per cent of the cost of the struc- 
ture. It is frequently pointed out that 
quite a revenue may be expected to ac- 
crue from the structure in the way of 
charges for opening the building, sealing 
catacombs, and the like. This may be 
true in the earlier years, but it is bound 
to diminish and will entirely cease when 
the catacombs are all filled. In case a 
safe provision were made for taking care 
of the maintenance and repairs for a rea- 
sonable term of years from other 
sources, so that the fund might be com- 
pounded and thus accumulate, a mini- 
mum of one-third of the cost of the 
building might be admissable. Anything 
less than these amounts your Committee 
is convinced can not be considered as 
safe or adequate, and these estimates are 
based on the building being of the very 
best type of construction. Any cheapen- 
ing of construction and the possibility 
of less durability would necessitate a 
larger fund proportionately. Instances 
are known to your Committee, and un- 
doubtedly to all members of this Asso- 
ciation, where structures which have 
only been up a comparatively few years, 
show by their present condition that 
without question they will have to be 
entirely rebuilt within a comparatively 
